GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Audio Play Icon Headphones Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Check Icon Print Icon Picture icon Single Arrow Icon Double Arrow Icon Hamburger Icon TV Icon Close Icon Sorted Hamburger/Search Icon
Green Building News

Maine Slashes Its Efficiency Program

Some lawmakers are fuming, but the utilities commission says the law is 'crystal clear'

Fewer dollars for weatherization? That's one possible outcome of a vote by Maine utility regulators trimming the amount of money that will be available to pay for energy efficiency programs.
Image Credit: Dennis Schroeder/National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Utility regulators in Maine have voted to trim funding for a statewide program that pays for energy efficiency improvements in homes and businesses, from the $60 million state lawmakers said they were expecting to $22 million.

Efficiency Maine, an independent agency that underwrites a variety of programs designed to reduce energy consumption, gets money from several sources, including a surcharge on electric bills. The vote by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on March 17 affects the amount of money that can be collected and spent on efficiency programs such as weatherization, heating system upgrades, and more efficient lighting.

The 2-1 vote was part of a rule-making followup to legislation passed in 2013. Flabbergasted lawmakers said their intent for a $60 million cap was clear, but regulators said they were simply following the letter of the law.

A clerical mistake in the bill as it left committee — the omission of the word “and” — may be to blame, according to a report in The Portland Press Herald.

The vote doesn’t affect current spending plans, but it if left uncorrected will be a blow. Efficiency Maine’s fiscal report for 2014 said the program had invested $36 million in efficiency upgrades last year that would save $192 million in long-term avoided energy costs. Benefits directly affected 261,000 participants last year.

Michael Stoddard, Efficiency Maine’s executive director, said by phone it was still up in the air exactly how the reduced funding would affect the agency’s program. If left as is, changes would kick in with the budget year that begins July 1, 2016

Lawmakers are dismayed, but PUC says the law is clear

“This decision by two members of the PUC makes absolutely no sense,” state Sen. Dawn Hill, a York Democrat, said in a written statement, according to the Press Herald. “Underfunding a program that has a proven track record of helping businesses and homeowners save money on their energy bills is a short-sighted decision.”

In a statement posted at its website, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental advocacy group, said the vote was a “surprising and unfortunate development” that would cost state residents as much as $265 million a year in missed savings.

The NRCM said the vote was part of a “very disturbing trend” that included an earlier PUC vote to reopen discussions on two previously approved wind farms in the state.

PUC spokesman Harry Lanphear said that commissioners in favor of the cutback were simply following the letter of the law.

“The law is completely clear and completely unambiguous as to how we do the calculation of the cap, and that was their decision,” he said by telephone. “The other side, some people would say that wasn’t the intent of the legislation, but the law that was passed, the law that went on the floor that was passed, was crystal clear. Our job is to implement the laws passed by the legislature and that’s what we’re doing.”

After the legislation was approved, lawmakers followed up with a letter to the PUC explaining their intent that efficiency spending be capped at $60 million. Lanphear said commissioners considered the letter, but in the end decided the law as written took precedence.

Electric rates won’t be going up as a result of the ruling, he said, and that current Efficiency Maine programs would not be affected.

Currently, the program adds about 78 cents a month to the average residential power bill. That would have increased to about $3.13 a month if the PUC had interpreted the law as legislators had apparently intended, The Press Herald said.


  1. Dan Kolbert | | #1

    Our governor
    It really is remarkable what is going on in Maine. Slash and burn governance. He presents himself as the ultimate pragmatist but most of his actions belie that notion. This being a perfect example. Ideology trumping results.

  2. KEVIN ZORSKI | | #2

    I couldn't agree more, Dan. LePage is a puppet of the national right wealthy elite. Maine is behind the rest of New England in encouraging solar, and now even weatherization and efficient appliances are on the chopping block. These programs provide jobs and help local businesses.He claims to want to reduce electrical rates to attract more businesses, then hurts the existing businesses through his actions.He is an embarrassment,and I am appalled that he was re-elected.

  3. User avater
    Stephen Sheehy | | #3

    Maine is filled with smart, creative people doing all sorts of interesting things to make buildings more efficient. Unfortunately, the governor sees solar, wind, etc. as some sort of lefty plot. He has no imagination. His solution to Maine's high energy costs is to build a big gas pipeline, but even there, he refused to play nice with the rest of NE governors to do it cooperatively.

    That said, he was easily re-elected, with plenty of votes from the people who are hurt by his policies.

  4. Nathan Spriegel | | #4

    The law is the law . . .
    While I can understand everyone's disappointment (including myself) with this decision I would like to say something in their defense. I deal with the National Electrical Code (NEC) on a daily basis. If there is one thing I have learned over the years the INTENT of code writing panels and committees are a mute point, it is what is actually written and issued that everyone must comply with. Everyone may have different interpretations of the law. However the job of the PUC is to comply with and enforce the law as written.

    Let's look at it the other way, what if that "and" was included in the law and the PUC officials decided that was a mistake and the intent was for it to be without it? Then everyone would be screaming that they need to enforce the law as written. You cannot have it both ways.

    Like it or not it is the responsibility of the lawmakers to write the laws and that includes proofreading them before voting and correcting them when mistakes are discovered.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.



Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |